Forntida egyptiska, hieroglyfer, och dess utveckling

[testing1]

Vill bara tillägga en liten sak här om hur Egypten hanterade sin situation som stormakt. Egyptens tidiga och oerhört långa dominans i hela regionen - inte minst kulturellt, är av stor betydelse tror jag. Egypten bjöd nämligen in vassall-staternas ledares söner i regionen till Egypten, och utbildade dem i egyptisk religion, språk, filosofi, etc. etc. etc. och skickade sedan tillbaka dem till sina hemområden, för att säkerställa en fortsatt lång, stabil och vänskaplig utveckling mellan Egypten och staterna i närområdet. Så Egyptens påverkan i området var kanske emellanåt åtminstonde betydande, så även språkligt då.

[Dûrion Annûndil]

Låt mig komma med lite konkret kritik mot Alsaadawi:

Här framlägger Alsaadawi grunderna till sin teori. Han hävdar först att Rosettastenen har blivit felaktigt översatt. Rosettastenen ledde ju till att hieroglyferna kunde tolkas genom att man antog att de tre texterna med tre olika skriftspråk berättade samma sak tre gånger om: den prisar den hellenistiske härskaren Ptolemaios V. För att tolka hieroglyferna så letade mången forskare efter återupprepningar av exempelvis Ptolemaios (vilket stod i den grekiska texten) i de två andra skriftspråken. Och när man väl issolerat detta så var det bara att arbeta vidare utifrån detta. Ptolemaios står ju då inom kartoucher och blir då P-t-o-l-m-e-s. Sedan lyckades man utläsa C-L-E-O-P-A-T-R-A ur en annan kartouch på ett annat ställe. Det funkade tydligen, för i nuläget kan man alltså läsa och förstå gammal egyptiska hieroglyfer, och meningarna (jämfört med betydelsen ur koptiska och tidigare samtida språk) verkar ju ha en rimlig betydelse - och på Rosetta stenen stämmer alla tre texterna då överens.

Alsaadawi håller inte med, och istället skall texten betyda:

II.1. The main idea of the text:

The Hieroglyphic text written in Rosetta Stone is mainly a dispatch of glad tidings. It reports a Divine Spiritual "Forecast" that speaks about some specified sacred Great Character that will come sometime in far future, "on the land of Egypt", to reestablish, reconfirm and re-maintain Ancient Egyptian religious beliefs and rituals. The Forecast is styled in the form of some religious and spiritual calls and invocations.
This ultra important Divine Forecast summarizes and incorporates the whole Ancient Egyptian Religion.

...vilket inte verkar stämma med grekiskan och demotiskan på stenen, och verkar lite nonsensaktigt i sammanhanget.

Sedan tar Alsaadawi ett konkret exempel ur Rosettastenen för att bevisa att namnet Ptolemaios inte finns på stenen över huvud taget bland Hieroglyferna. På den sjätte raden, första kartouchen, står det snarare

[{f-t-wa-r-m-ii}-{s-3ankh}-{Dtt-f-t-H-mr-ii}]

Where is ‘Ptolmis’ here? There is no such word at all. Even, if replace true (f) by false (p) we get:

[(p-t-wa-r-m-ii)-(s-3nkh)], which reads like (ptwarmi-s-3ankh). Also, there is NO ‘ptolmis’ word at all.

The most probable name (MPN), which could be included in this TEXT in a hidden way is {(r-m-ii)-s)}! that is (rome-s/romi-s/rami)!!

Conclusion:

**Prime assumption of Champollion is WRONG**

... alltså P-T-WA-R-M-E-S-ANKH, ungefär. O och L skall vara WA och R. För det första så skulle alltså Rosettastenens övre del berätta något helt annat, prata nonsens, och i slutändan så kan man alltså inte heller läsa C-L-E-O-P-A-T-R-A utan snarare C-R-E-WA-A-T-(ett till R-ljud som måste vara fel om det redan finns)-A. Vilket blir problematiskt med ett grekiskt namn som vi känner till från annat håll som uttalat Kleopatra.

Och sedan om man tittar närmare på Alsaadawis sida och Rosettastenen, så ser man att någon Ankh sist inom kartouchen med Ptolemaios namn inte förekommer på stenen, vilket det gör i Alsaadawis förklaring däremot. Tyvärr har jag ingen bra bild på stenen utanför mina böcker...

Mvh-Dan

[testing1]

Jag återkommer.

[testing1]

Låt mig komma med lite konkret kritik mot Alsaadawi:

Här framlägger Alsaadawi grunderna till sin teori. Han hävdar först att Rosettastenen har blivit felaktigt översatt. Rosettastenen ledde ju till att hieroglyferna kunde tolkas genom att man antog att de tre texterna med tre olika skriftspråk berättade samma sak tre gånger om: den prisar den hellenistiske härskaren Ptolemaios V. För att tolka hieroglyferna så letade mången forskare efter återupprepningar av exempelvis Ptolemaios (vilket stod i den grekiska texten) i de två andra skriftspråken. Och när man väl issolerat detta så var det bara att arbeta vidare utifrån detta. Ptolemaios står ju då inom kartoucher och blir då P-t-o-l-m-e-s. Sedan lyckades man utläsa C-L-E-O-P-A-T-R-A ur en annan kartouch på ett annat ställe. Det funkade tydligen, för i nuläget kan man alltså läsa och förstå gammal egyptiska hieroglyfer, och meningarna (jämfört med betydelsen ur koptiska och tidigare samtida språk) verkar ju ha en rimlig betydelse - och på Rosetta stenen stämmer alla tre texterna då överens.

Alsaadawi håller inte med, och istället skall texten betyda:

II.1. The main idea of the text:

The Hieroglyphic text written in Rosetta Stone is mainly a dispatch of glad tidings. It reports a Divine Spiritual "Forecast" that speaks about some specified sacred Great Character that will come sometime in far future, "on the land of Egypt", to reestablish, reconfirm and re-maintain Ancient Egyptian religious beliefs and rituals. The Forecast is styled in the form of some religious and spiritual calls and invocations.
This ultra important Divine Forecast summarizes and incorporates the whole Ancient Egyptian Religion.

...vilket inte verkar stämma med grekiskan och demotiskan på stenen, och verkar lite nonsensaktigt i sammanhanget.

Sedan tar Alsaadawi ett konkret exempel ur Rosettastenen för att bevisa att namnet Ptolemaios inte finns på stenen över huvud taget bland Hieroglyferna. På den sjätte raden, första kartouchen, står det snarare

[{f-t-wa-r-m-ii}-{s-3ankh}-{Dtt-f-t-H-mr-ii}]

Where is ‘Ptolmis’ here? There is no such word at all. Even, if replace true (f) by false (p) we get:

[(p-t-wa-r-m-ii)-(s-3nkh)], which reads like (ptwarmi-s-3ankh). Also, there is NO ‘ptolmis’ word at all.

The most probable name (MPN), which could be included in this TEXT in a hidden way is {(r-m-ii)-s)}! that is (rome-s/romi-s/rami)!!

Conclusion:

**Prime assumption of Champollion is WRONG**

... alltså P-T-WA-R-M-E-S-ANKH, ungefär. O och L skall vara WA och R. För det första så skulle alltså Rosettastenens övre del berätta något helt annat, prata nonsens, och i slutändan så kan man alltså inte heller läsa C-L-E-O-P-A-T-R-A utan snarare C-R-E-WA-A-T-(ett till R-ljud som måste vara fel om det redan finns)-A. Vilket blir problematiskt med ett grekiskt namn som vi känner till från annat håll som uttalat Kleopatra.

Och sedan om man tittar närmare på Alsaadawis sida och Rosettastenen, så ser man att någon Ankh sist inom kartouchen med Ptolemaios namn inte förekommer på stenen, vilket det gör i Alsaadawis förklaring däremot. Tyvärr har jag ingen bra bild på stenen utanför mina böcker...

Mvh-Dan

http://egyptologist.org/discus/messages ... 1027386079

Där kommer de in på Rosetta-stenen.

[Dûrion Annûndil]

Mycket att läsa där. Klipp ut det väsentliga, så kan vi diskutera därifrån. Okej?

Mvh -Dan

[testing1]

Ossama Alsaadawi:

JD,

(In the Greek text of the Rosetta Stone, sign G 16 is rendered as kurios basileiôn, "Lord of the Crowns")

How you equated G16 = kurios basileiôn?

How you Judged that the Greek text is a ‘duplicate’ of the Hieroglyphic text? This was an assumption that could be wrong because they didn’t decipher all Hieroglyphs yet! Many savants said that they are two independent texts, and Christine explained this before. Then all comparisons might be built on a wrong assumption. If you know Egyptian habits then you would have known that Egyptians write the top text of any monument board as a divine text, then lower texts are normal language that describes the event. Rosetta Stone is no exception.

Then how you know it is ‘Lord of the Crowns’? Where is the word ‘crowns’ here? Then we have ‘lord-lord’ not one lord? Then what about [G14] and [I12]?

You see, by little thinking you get at once that the whole assumption is wrong and illogic.

Then you say:

(Ossama also neglects the fact that hieroglyphs omit the vowels, that what is written jmn could be pronounced (j)Amon or Amun)

It is you and some others who close their eyes and ears and don’t like to see or hear. I explained many times that Hieroglyphs include two obvious systems for vowels:

1- Independent system:

[Z7] = w
[Z4] = i
[Z5A] = a

One example:

[D21] = neutrally-vowelized (r)
[D21:Z7] = rw

2- self-imbedded vowels:

One example:

[G17] = neutrally-vowelized (m)
[U2] = ma

It means that if you want to vowel ‘any’ Hieroglyphic ‘phoneme’ then you either add the proper independent vowel or chose other independent Hieroglyph that imbeds this vowel.

Therefore, it is ‘impossible’ to read ‘imn’ is ‘amwn’! But if you want to use my ‘motorizing-letters principle of my theory then you can omit [M17] and write it as [Y5:N35] and in this case you might read as (amwn) if the context permits that.

Or better to write it in Full alphabetic form like:

[Z11-E34] = Z11-W24 = am-wn = Amwm / Amun.

Here we have [Z11] = am
[E34] = wn
[W24] =nw / wn = nwn.

Then you say:

(When he did so, in the past, he was promptly banned from this BB : Coranic verses appearing in Ancient Egyptian texts may be shocking to some.)

Do you know what the word ‘quran’ means from lingual point of view? Do you know its root word?

Its root word is ‘qar2’ or ‘qara2’, which means ‘read’.

[N29-G1-A28] = qara2 = read

Faulkner MDE p.275, 1st word: translated to ‘tall, high exalted, etc’

It is all guessing! Real meaning of this word is ‘read’!

Have you read ‘early history of Arabian Peninsula before higra’?

I don’t wish to go into some critical religious issues but what I wish to say is that many AE texts have been conducted to Torah, bible and Quran. I was speaking from ‘lingual’ point of view, and many people on this respected BB explained this before and how some Bible texts have strong resemblance in the Book Of The Dead. If you look to lingual explanations and discussions from a fanatic point of view, I don’t!

I don’t mean to offend Louise at all, it is just the heat of the discussion.

Ossama Alsaadawi

Alan Jaworski:

To J.D.

One particular issue that Ossama raised should be of interest to even you. The Rosetta Stone determination to be specific. i easily understand your reply, but do not agree that the cross reference of the three languages: greek, hieroglyph and hieratic provide a resolution of phonetic determination. Who made the Rosetta Stone? It appears that it takes place at least after greek influence. Was it made by greek artisans? Did the Greek artisans know the correct phonetic sounds and how was that proven? Why does the transliteration - nb.tj is kurios basileiôn, “lord of the crowns - sound reasonable to you, why have two crowns if you are the one ruler?? In modern terms a man of many hats has differing abilities. So what right..

Back to the greeks.. who had come to Egypt after the persians or who ever..

The initial phonetics would have reasonably been corrupted by the time of the greek infusion. The greeks were new age to the AE. For a moment grant this imagining. i don't know your name, but say that it is John David Degreef. A third party say an english speaking african could read this conversation and suggest to her friends the pronunciation of your name. But she does not have a J in her alphabet, and so substitutes - ian instead of John, and she has no D so she replaces D with T, no V which becomes f, etc....
Your new name is already altered to Ian Tafit Tegreef. Do you see my point?
To add to that point, there is a game that children play or used to play called Gossip. In the game the first child relates a statement to a second, who relates it to a third and so on.. the message at the end of a dozen children is not likely the same message. Some of the children cannot perceive the message correctly and some cannot relate it correctly. How does this fit in with the greeks? Some one thought up the idea for the stone, and through diplomacy made it to be the ruler's idea. They may have been egyptian. Someone worked with the statement that would be recorded, if this was done by the ruler, did that ruler speak greek. The work was handled by cronies of that ruler, who knew an artisan that could do the work, were they greek?? The stone worker put onto the slab the exact statement of the ruler, without artistic licence? This is displaying my next point. How many people has this gone through? There is another old saying - don't beat a dead horse - it could be an AE saying, i'm not sure, i can't remember everything. You believe that you are right, and that excludes those in opposition, here is where science fails you. This is also why I didn't participate to your "Egyptian spirituality" string, after I read it's something "one has to feel but which can't be proven" (quoted from memory)- as you stated.

In closing, i suggest that the Rosetta Stone determination as exemplified by your vast researching is as Ossama suggests guessing, although i add educated guessing. We all compare with our universe to become to that which our perception allows us. You look at the past and imagine people right?, AE people?, and you obtain that knowledge for the purpose of.. mutiple choice here: necessity (which doesn't seem scientific), enlightenment (which doesn't seem scientific), self satisfaction (WDSS), replication (this was actually Ted Kazinsky's downfall, as he could not accomplish that task), or you just happen to be doing this (so it is fate or chance). i do not mean this to be denigrating, but did you by chance notice in your above compliment by Louise - Unfortunately, when studying for the BA degree, you focus so much on the linguistic and grammatical features of the texts that you forget what the stories are actually about -

To the journeyers,
i am neither for or against Ossama or J.D., they both wish to express themselves, and i for one would rather have it so, than for them to bottle it up inside, to explode later on, and shatter other lives.

good journies,nefer-ka

Rick:

J.D. I think the point that Alan is making is that many, many people worked on the rosetta stone. Scribes, sculptors, translators, the priests, each set of people contributed their own set of mistakes, and hidden agendas to the carving of the stone. It was entirely possible that the crew engraving the demotic had no knowledge of Greek, the Greek crew had no knowledge of heiroglyphics etc. the accumulated errors could lead to wildly different translations after it was discovered.

Ritva:

Ossama,

"the sacred house" is right on the money! The temple of the soul i.e. the body. And you are right, there are no gods there, just the ONE.

It's obvious that Ossama and JD read different things in the same texts. Whereas JD's translations are correct as far as everyday life goes, or the material side of it, Ossama seems to cleave into the spiritual message.

How can that be explained? Or has the NEWBIE spoken again?

Pope:

(Whereas JD's translations are correct as far as everyday life goes, or the material side of it, Ossama seems to cleave into the spiritual message

I think this is a "fight" over the fundamentals of the old Egyptian language. There's no 50/50 solution. It's either all or nothing.)

Alan Jaworski:

To Ossama,

i agree with Ritva, that we each can perceive something different in the AE glyphs. My transliterations are so vastly different from either your or J.D.s that it is incredible. The structure of our perception is the difference of interpretation. The AE i have found, had a system of replicating a particular perception or EYE, that could perceive through the illusion that is Life, and perceive Truth. May you find this eye.

To J.D.,

You give your work an incredible amount of heart. You must perceive that the AE glyphs were produced by so many different of peoples, as different as you and i. Some were military, some were political, some were religious, some were graffiti, some were for business, etc., etc. for thousands of years. The AE drawings are all pieces of stories that the artist is trying to relate. Military campaigns, higher powers, lists, science, medicine, engineering, etc.,to name a few. When we, being moderns, look back to the AE, we will necessarily notice particulars that are relative and also comparative to who we are as a person. You might feel that the AE language is of the most importance for your understanding of the AE, and therefore it should be accross the board to any who would study the AE, but i am not interested in how the AE would speak a word, but instead how the AE would image a drawing. The only reason that i perceive of learning the spoken AE word, would be to perform a magic ritual, and i already perceive that from the imaging. You may feel content with your imagining of the AE phonetics and others' agreement. i am interested in the AE stories through art, and also in the stories of those who post on this board; their insight; their vision; their questions.

good journies,nefer-ka

Ossama Alsaadawi:

Hi Alan,

I see your point quite well and of course you and Ritva are right. However, we have strict READING rules that must be followed before we offer any word whatever quality we see.

For example, let’s look to the English word ‘play’. Everyone could offer it a different quality:

= one sees it as ‘playing’ music.
= one sees it as ‘playing’ football.
= one sees it as ‘playing’ with girls.
= one sees it as ‘playing’ in hard working.
= one sees it as ‘playing’ with jet-plane acrobats.
= one sees it as ‘playing’ Olympiad games.
etc

If you check the English dictionary you’ll find more than 20 different interpretations and explanations for the English word ‘play’!!

But before all that we are RULED by reading only four phonemes:

P - L - A - Y = play.

Without CORRECT reading to this word as ‘play’ we can’t offer it any quality at all, or we might offer it the wrong quality! For example one might read the (p) as (s). Here, he’ll read this word as ‘slay’ and hence he will offer it all the qualities of the word ‘slay’ but not ‘play’.

Likewise, in AE’s writings we MUST read the words CORRECTLY first then we might offer them any qualities as we wish according to our different points of view.

We can’t say that the word (sun) means ‘darkness’!

Kind regards,
Ossama Alsaadawi

JDean:

Dear Ossama,

I've been fascinated by your theory since I first read about it. I like to confine arguments to facts and details, not philosophy or polemic. There is only one truth. Do you have any ideas about the bilingual scribe with the spell in PGM that I provided to you? The scribe wrote in Demotic and Greek. It clearly looks like the same thing.( Min anmärkning)

Sincerely,
Jack

[Dûrion Annûndil]

Jag tycker fortfarande det är märkligt att Alsaadawi läser in Ankh i Rosettastenen där inget Ankh -tecken finns. Så det borde rimligen stå Cleopatra.

Mvh -Dan

[Ralf Palmgren]

Tråden flyttad till avdelningen Språkhistoria.